23 March 2012

The Administration's Outreach to Catholics: "The aim is to isolate rather than destroy."

My brother tipped me off to this excellent article at Crisis Magazine, comparing (I didn't say contrasting) the policies of Fidel Castro and his fellow traveler in the White House towards Holy Mother Church.  Emphases and comments of my own added:

To Isolate and Marginalize: Obama takes Cue from Castro

by Christian Tappe












Sound familiar?

The Church in America is weak. Secularism has been chipping away at it for decades. (This of course is true, but sidesteps the unpleasant task of identifying the real villains within the Church who destroyed the liturgy, doctrine and discipline.)  In recent years, many Catholic orphanages have closed after being cut off from public funds because they would not promote abortion, contraception, and the like. And we already know the precarious state of Catholic hospitals and colleges.


Sherman’s observation was dire, terrifying, and prescient . . . and it still applies today. Perhaps the Church is stronger now in the United States than it was then in Cuba, but not exponentially so (and this only if measured by organization-- for the faith is undoubtedly weaker). The Church here is indeed struggling. The bishops, led by Cardinal Dolan, have spoken out, but then again, as Sherman tells us, two of the leading archbishops in Cuba “demonstrated publicly against Soviet influence.”

For the Obama administration, just like in Castro’s fledgling Cuba, it is merely a matter of tactics. How to isolate the Church without inciting a riot. [...]


Now, in a series of moves eerily similar, if not in actual implementation then in spirit, to those of the Castro regime, Catholics in America are facing the same isolation that Cuban Catholics experienced fifty years ago. It started slowly and somewhat innocuously. A token acknowledgment of the “freedom to worship,” or some such meaningless phrase, and then it came quickly and relentlessly. A weak Church subsumed and subjugated by a powerful government (the vaunted "fruits of Vatican II"). And the people were powerless against it.

It won’t move as quickly as it did in Cuba (I respectfully disagree; when the action comes, you will see tissue-thin resistance and all is weakness)—the American political process doesn’t allow for such swift action—but it can still happen fast (remember, the HHS mandate, promulgated by executive fiat will go into effect in August). And there could be some more resistance considering that the Church is a bit stronger here than it was in Cuba in 1960, but not much.







Before it’s too late.

I am convinced that only the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, foretold at Fatima, can end the persecution we have justly earned.  Pray for the Holy Father to consecrate Russia to Mary's Immaculate Heart, in union with all the world's bishops.  This is what Our Lady asked for, and this remains to be done.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!


Jane Chantal said...


doughboy said...

So are you saying that when JPII Consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, that it was not valid?

Anonymous said...

Interesting article, but while identifying a problem is necessary, it is not sufficient. The pertinent follow-up question is: What are we - not just the bishops - going to do about it?

Prayer is the obvious first thing, but there are a number of tangible steps, too:

1) Write polite-yet-firm letters to the editor, stating the case for the Catholic view on the debate of the week. Use plenty of secular arguments in those letters, because while moral/theological arguments are certainly valid, they are not very compelling to a society that believes Church teaching is obsolete; incorporate convincing secular arguments, and after a while, secularists have to start wondering "What is it about the Church that allows it to be right on this issue, even in the face of conventional wisdom?"

2) In the Review, Archbishop Carlson mentioned a former parish of his posted a yardsign: "Are you angry at the Catholic Church? If so, call (XXX) XXX-XXXX." Sure enough, people called, and when their issues/questions/misunderstandings were addressed gently and authoritatively by a deacon, some of them came back. Almost any parish could do this.

3) Ask your priest for permission to set out a few copies of apologetics literature in the pews before Masses. Our Sunday Visitor, Liguori Publications, and Catholics Come Home, Inc. have some excellent materials I can recommend. (Admittedly, if your parish is the Oratory, most of the parishioners are probably already familiar with Church teaching.)

4) Donate Catholic apologetics books to libraries, student groups, flea markets, and book fairs. Pick a local RCIA program you like and donate materials to it. The Daughters of the Mother of Peace do door-to-door evangelization work in St. Louis - donate funds to them.

5) Make discussion of Catholic topics a part of your conversation in restaurants and other public spaces. It is amazing how much people pick up on conversations at the neighboring table. Goodness knows how many critiques of the Church I've heard in such places.

These are only a few ideas. Imagination, and occasionally dollars, is the only limit. The overarching principle we have to have when addressing Church critics is to first acknowledge their sincerity, because if we do not, it is human nature to tune out immediately.

I understand the critiques of Vatican II, but I do not believe it adequately, or even mostly, explains the fix the Church is in today; after all, lax faith practice and schism go back to apostolic times. My hypothesis: By the 1950s and early 1960s, the Church in America had finally reached the "promised land" of acceptance by American society, and a Church of growing schools and parishes was booming. The Church probably got a bit complacent, feeling no need to explain the "whys" of the faith, but rather administer its growth. However, Vietnam and Watergate made Americans unsatisfied with not knowing "why", and the Sexual Revolution placed a nice, new, juicy apple on the Tree of Knowledge just waiting to be taken. Secular society was giving people an answer they very much wanted to hear, and the Church was simply assuming people knew the truth. None of that is specifically a function of Vatican II - if Vatican II never happened, are we sure things would be so different today, at least in terms of substance versus appearance?

Again, I very much appreciate the zeal here, and I apologize for going through my book-length opinions before recognizing that. The key question is, how can that zeal become the basis for reaching people where they are at?

Bryan Kirchoff
St. Louis

brimtow0003 said...

Mr. Kirchoff,

I agree with your sentiments to a point: things would probably still be less than optimal without Vatican II if the poor catechesis (and the consequential lack of a spiritual life for many Catholics) of the 40s/50s had been left untouched.

However, I do think that the ambiguities and misinterpretations thereof in Vat. II documents certainly added to the problem - namely, through the de-emphasizing of catechesis even further and the Church growing more comfortable in the ways of the world, with a further loss of Catholic identity (esp. through the relaxing of certain disciplines, such as abstinence and fasting, and the emphasis on ecumenism).

But most importantly, if the Mass had not been changed as it was, it would be a lot easier for Catholics to notice two things that most do not notice now: 1) we are different from Protestants; 2) the Mass is a sacrifice (with the corollary of the need of expiation for our sins). And, realizing those facts from the very existence of the Mass, it is more likely that those who remained at least every-Sunday churchgoing Catholics would be in a better position to resist this kulturkampf than the average every-Sunday Catholic is today, at the very least. Basically, the catechetical value of the old Mass itself, had it not been altered, would have placed us in a better position than we are at present.